Blunderbusses and Chosen of Ashuruk - Community Input

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    The latest issue of the 9th Scroll is here! You can read all about it in the news.

    • Wanted to share my idea that I posted in the design team area. Nothing has been said about this so I would like to hear your point of view about this.

      Thinking of ID should be: "charge me if you dare!"

      How about some kind of 'anti impact hits' meaning the attacking unit gets hits per model in contact and even more hits when it has more ranks?
      Let's say:


      Come get some
      "Models in charging enemy units from the front of ID unit with this special rule get X automatically hits where X is equal to the number of rull ranks in the attacking unit up to a maximum of 15 hits. These hits are resolved at Agility 10, S3 and AP1."



      Stole the basic mechanic from KoE banner.

      Those hits could be either interpretated as spiked shields, spiked armour, blunderbuss sidearms, magical equipment, fire aura and so on.
      Anything the players want for modelling.

      Would fit to the aspect of brawling down slaverabbles as the ID would be outnumbered every time.

      Would also fit the style that ID like to walk forward with short range shooting weapons. Shoot as much as they can and then wait for the weakened (but probably still high in numbers) enemy. Then they take they spiked shields and do another round of hits by the impact hits.

      DH want to be near their enemy because they know that they are better in close combat. They have ambush, scout and vanguard to get there. And they get a bonus if they charge AND if they get charged. So close combat is where they want to be if we are being honest.

      So, would you like to have something like the rule mentioned above for ID (infantry) units?
      Would this deliver grinding (in form of survivability in the first turn), fluff and easy usage in game?
    • The Matt wrote:

      Battlefury? Sounds pretty cool, is it just battle focus?

      Also who here thinks giving the subjucator a form of the Giants rage would go a bit towards making him playable?
      Yeah :oops: I never get it right for some reason.

      That way you could also just remove the CoA rule from Lugar's. They're part daemon after all. And hopefully get a little point decrease. Some sort of defensive CoA rule would'nt fit them fluff-wise anyway.
    • TobiasP wrote:

      Id like CoA to be: Battle focus after The units takes a wound.

      Flavourful, more powerful than current, yet not too powerful with only 1 attack for most models.
      So it ist basically Battlefocus...
      To be honest, with Agility 2, easy access to GW, slow movement and so on, the chance of getting the special rule is pretty high (= almost 100%).

      To be honest, I don't like that. It would just be playing around and creating another special rule that would activate an existing special rule.
      Besides, it doesn't fit in my mind. Lugars Cultists and Kadim would not profit from it. And it would make them all basically the same. Except that normal ID would not have frenzy.

      It was complained a lot that battlefocus would not help ist (much) with the goal of 'grinding'. I agree.

      Therefore I would like to once again push for something defensive that highers our chances of surviving the first combat round by adding a damaging effect to the charging enemies.

      Therefore:
      Come get some
      "Models in charging enemy units from the front of ID unit with this special rule get X automatically hits where X is equal to the number of rull ranks in the attacking unit up to a maximum of 15 hits. These hits are resolved at Agility 10, S3 and AP1."

      It fits our industrial and highly developed background.
      It supports anyone who want to add fluffy conversions to the army.
      It supports every visual army style.

      Ruleswise it helps against horde armies and glascannnon armies.
      And it still forces you to think about your tactics regarding positioning and if you should attack (special or rule doesn't apply but you decide your fight) and defend (enemy decides fight but suffers losses).

      Also I guess that with this special rule we would get some points decrease.


      ---
      I don't want to push only my idea but it doesn't help, of everybody is just throwing ideas inside the room without considering the other ideas.
      We have to work together here!
    • The Matt wrote:

      What was wrong the old Indy book by Coleman's version of Blunderbusses? Str 3. With plus 1 str for each rank (max str 5). Hits any enemy unit in 12" , each model on a 4+. Right before beta they were trying out the 6th Ed version with variable hits instead of variable str. But with a horrible clunky template hit system in a game where templates were gotten rid of.

      So I would suggest 12" range, hits every model in unit on 4+ and ignores all modifiers except Hard Target and SS.
      Start at str 3 ap1 and adds +1str (only str) per rank (max 5).
      A short range gun needs to be powerful in order to make up for not shooting most of the game. Making Blunderbusses str3 or 4 is just stupid when most other guns are str4 and 24"
      This version can be devistating to the correct units, and get ignored by others (armored cav, single Target units), but it's definitely better than a simple 12" str4 peeshooter noone wants.
      Add to it:
      Maximum hits = number of models in shooting unit
      And you have my vote for it.

      I don't think that it would be fitting to possibly hit every model in an 10-15 Inch infantry bus, right? ;)


      Jarec wrote:

      That does however contradict our supposed first turn damage weakness.
      Three things to mention:
      - It happens in the enemy phase
      - We already have flaming aura which is similar
      - it lowers the enemies damage output
    • Ferkinason wrote:

      TobiasP wrote:

      Id like CoA to be: Battle focus after The units takes a wound.

      Flavourful, more powerful than current, yet not too powerful with only 1 attack for most models.
      So it ist basically Battlefocus...To be honest, with Agility 2, easy access to GW, slow movement and so on, the chance of getting the special rule is pretty high (= almost 100%).

      To be honest, I don't like that. It would just be playing around and creating another special rule that would activate an existing special rule.
      Besides, it doesn't fit in my mind. Lugars Cultists and Kadim would not profit from it. And it would make them all basically the same. Except that normal ID would not have frenzy.

      It was complained a lot that battlefocus would not help ist (much) with the goal of 'grinding'. I agree.

      Therefore I would like to once again push for something defensive that highers our chances of surviving the first combat round by adding a damaging effect to the charging enemies.

      Therefore:
      Come get some
      "Models in charging enemy units from the front of ID unit with this special rule get X automatically hits where X is equal to the number of rull ranks in the attacking unit up to a maximum of 15 hits. These hits are resolved at Agility 10, S3 and AP1."
      It fits our industrial and highly developed background.
      It supports anyone who want to add fluffy conversions to the army.
      It supports every visual army style.

      Ruleswise it helps against horde armies and glascannnon armies.
      And it still forces you to think about your tactics regarding positioning and if you should attack (special or rule doesn't apply but you decide your fight) and defend (enemy decides fight but suffers losses).

      Also I guess that with this special rule we would get some points decrease.


      ---
      I don't want to push only my idea but it doesn't help, of everybody is just throwing ideas inside the room without considering the other ideas.
      We have to work together here!
      Is it meant to say 'full' ranks? So 1-4 str 3 hits when charged? Sure you could make that rule and i agree on it being thematically fine. However i find it close to useless in practice..

      Incarnates does'nt have CoA anyway, so no issue there. (And how excactly would your rule fit incarnates fluff?)
      And so remove CoA from lugars. They're not profiting from no-fear either anyway.

      Yeah it would be pretty much always, except for when charging and against other stuff with GW. Thats not insignificant.
      Also battle focus itself is the equivalent to +1 to hit as the elves has, so a somewhat weaker version of that. I think its perfect power-wise.
    • The rule would mean:
      - 1 hit per attacking model in direct contact
      - plus 1 additional hit per model for every full rank after the first
      - maximum 15 hits (could be higher of not strong enough...)

      So:
      5*2 Zombies attack. 10 hits.
      3*2 koe knights attack. 6 hits.
      3*2 wdg knights attack. 3 hits.
      7*3 white lions attack. 15 hits.
      5*10 slaves attack. 15 hits.

      Kadim would not profit from it. They have their own rules.
      Lugars I would say is debatable. They are still dwarfs. But also got flaming aura. So I would say: no they don't get it.

      Important difference:
      Lugar aura always works. High strenght, no ap.
      Other special rule only when attacked. More hits, lower strength, higher AP.

      Please keep one thing in mind:
      We will still have strong shooting weapons! So S&S will still be an option of we equip our dwarfs with it. And combination of shield and shooting weapon is possible! ;)
    • I know that you dont like our Hard Weakness... but I cant do much with proposals that directly consist in "First Turn Damage with AGI10".


      I would ask everyone to work within our current limits so we can try to get something good from this for May.

      Softing the First Turn Damage Hard Weakness is in my top priority list as ACS. Until it happens (if it does), there is no way that we can make here the adequated proposals if we dont know how our ASAW will end, so again, it seems more productive working with the guidelines we have now.
    • Gomio wrote:

      I know that you dont like our Hard Weakness... but I cant do much with proposals that directly consist in "First Turn Damage with AGI10".


      I would ask everyone to work within our current limits so we can try to get something good from this for May.

      Softing the First Turn Damage Hard Weakness is in my top priority list as ACS. Until it happens (if it does), there is no way that we can make here the adequated proposals if we dont know how our ASAW will end, so again, it seems more productive working with the guidelines we have now.
      That is why I say just scrap the battle focus part and give us a price drop. That way it saves effort for when that change comes.
    • Gomio wrote:

      I know that you dont like our Hard Weakness... but I cant do much with proposals that directly consist in "First Turn Damage with AGI10".


      I would ask everyone to work within our current limits so we can try to get something good from this for May.

      Softing the First Turn Damage Hard Weakness is in my top priority list as ACS. Until it happens (if it does), there is no way that we can make here the adequated proposals if we dont know how our ASAW will end, so again, it seems more productive working with the guidelines we have now.
      Would it work if the rule triggers at agility 0?

      Or as grinding attack?
    • Tyranno wrote:

      Gomio wrote:

      I know that you dont like our Hard Weakness... but I cant do much with proposals that directly consist in "First Turn Damage with AGI10".


      I would ask everyone to work within our current limits so we can try to get something good from this for May.

      Softing the First Turn Damage Hard Weakness is in my top priority list as ACS. Until it happens (if it does), there is no way that we can make here the adequated proposals if we dont know how our ASAW will end, so again, it seems more productive working with the guidelines we have now.
      That is why I say just scrap the battle focus part and give us a price drop. That way it saves effort for when that change comes.
      But if it ends not happening, we would have wasted plenty of time without testing anything. At the risk of get current cheap battlefocus in the final book.